Feuerbach, Kierkegaard, and Emerson
Philosophy is understood as a system, capable of being isolated and understood given the right amount of knowledge. Søren Kierkegaard makes a dichotomy between philosophy and religion. Religion being seemingly intangible in terms of infinite wisdom is intentional. The fact that it can’t be contained by a Hegelian system is a strength and not a weakness. A Leap Of Faith is an essential aspect of Christianity and it’s a feature not a bug when it goes against our perception of philosophy. A philosopher trying to put Christianity in a one size fits all standard is missing the core of religion. He explains it by saying, “Faith is the contradiction between the infinite passion of inwardness and the objective uncertainty. If I am able to apprehend God ob-jectively, I do not have faith; but because I cannot do this, I must have faith,” (Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Fiala Phil 104 Canvas Fall 2021). Kierkegaard describes the story of Christianity as a fundamental key in history. Ludwig Feuerbach speaks to the dichotomy and the personal struggle within to accept the limits of the natural world. He says a lot by saying, “The alleged religious horror of limiting God by determinate predicates is only the irreligious wish to forget all about God, to banish him from the mind. He who is afraid to be finite is afraid to exist,” (Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, Fiala Phil 104 Canvas Fall 2021). He also makes the claim that the Christian story is one of many stories. However, this would be a reductive interpretation according to Kierkegaard. For example, many people were crucified throughout history. Yet, the story of Jesus Christ is an exception and his crucifixion creates a new precedent like his New Covenant. Conversion and transformation are the terms that religion operates under. A great example is Born Again Christians who enter a new era of their life due to the impact of Christianity. That change doesn’t have to abide by philosophical consistencies.
Kierkegaard’s account of Socrates is that his journey and legacy are primitive compared to religion. The lack of spiritual content in exchange for humanist lessons would’ve been discussed by someone else eventually. In other words, Socrates is interchangeable and many figures could compete with him. However, Jesus can’t be surpassed and he is beyond philosophy. His legacy is not even the same genre by comparison. The idea that they are both teachers and martyrs is only a cosmetic similarity according to Kierkegaard. Miracles destroy logic on its own independent terms. David Hume’s long explanations cannot be won if faith is valid. Faith and philosophy labeled against each other creates the dichotomy. Kierkegaard makes the distinction between those who came before him by asking, “Would it not be best to stop with faith, and is it not shocking that every-one wants to go further?” (Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, Fiala Phil 104 Canvas Fall 2021).
Ralph Emerson brought another history changing concept to the table. He developed a popular idea, individualism, as an alleged substitute for religion. His philosophy offers freedom seperate from religion as his revolutionary predecessors promoted. He summed his priorities by stating, “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world” (Emerson, Self-Reliance, Fiala Phil 104 Canvas Fall 2021). He embraces the criticism from those holding onto the historic American nation. Anything that strays away from Christianity is often atheistic at best and satanic at worst since it places personal priorities over church, the Bible, and Faith. Emerson argues his interpretation of Christianity should be updated with the time he was living in. He wants religion to be flexible and fit in the context of the 19th century. Similar to Nietzsche, he embodied the caricature of being against Christianity if it consists of staying loyal to tradition. Emerson also brought his own schism to the religion by suggesting Pantheism and stepping outside the communion of Rome. His emphasis on self reliance creates one of the early stages of libertarianism. As a political philosophy, it’s influence spread beyond arbitrary disagreements with monarchy in the aftermath of the French Revolution and became more polished by the 20th century.
When Emerson discusses the over-soul, it’s similar to Hegel’s Geist yet without the emphasis on systematic thinking. Similar to those inspired by him, spirituality is embraced through nature. Eventually, this aesthetic is updated in modern adaptations with drug use as a tool to find introspection. Aldous Huxley expands that model and creates a more recent version of individualism. The 1960’s counterculture becomes a byproduct that can trace its roots back to Emerson’s proto-libertarianism.
Monism invariably leads to the anarcho tendencies of Emerson’s philosophy. The crazy and criminal are allowed on the same playing field as one of many categories of thought. This has caused recent partisan debate about where to draw the line between reasonable and radical ideas. Feuerbach’s ideas may be paved with good intentions yet they can easily be distorted by insisting it is The Essence Of Christianity. In some way, Emerson is less of a threat in the long term, because he identifies as a distinct ideology that others can buy into. Feuerbach muddies the waters of Christianity and confuses more generations of what is and isn’t a proper mindset for religion. His anti-traditionalist views could also be adapted to other religions and create other schisms that cause friction.
Ironically, one of the biggest critiques against Christianity is “Why would God care about people if there is more to life than people in the scope of existence?” At the same time, figures like Emerson concede that the individual is at the center of Transcendentalism. The value of people seems to shift on what exactly is missing from religion according to skeptical philosophers.
Feuerbach, Kierkegaard, and Emerson offer new takes on Christianity with some being more sympathetic than others. Feuerbach and Kierkegaard attach themselves more to the religion as its new guides to understand it on their terms. Emerson takes spirituality in a very unique direction, although arguably deviates from the religion. Feuerbach is also creating his own movement separate from the religion he tries to represent, leading to a very different type of Christianity altogether. All three go different directions while staying outside traditional structures as their predecessors did.